THE TRIBUNAL (Hansard, 30 April 1999)

§ Mr. Forth
I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 15, leave out 'in prescribed circumstances' and insert 'at the discretion of the Tribunal'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in page 7, line 16, leave out 'in prescribed circumstances' and insert 'at the discretion of the Tribunal'. No. 18, in page 7, line 36, at end insert '; ';and (s) for the location of hearings, to provide for reasonable access and security of the persons involved.'.

§ Mr. Forth
I suppose that it is appropriate that this is our final consideration of the detail in the Bill before Third 660 Reading rounds things off. It may seem that our consideration has been overly detailed, but some of the matters that I want to raise are important, because the tribunal will play such a key role. We must get the arrangements as right as we can.
The first thing that caught my eye was the suggestion in subsection (2)(e) and (f) that the Secretary of State may include in regulations provision for the holding of hearings in private in prescribed circumstances and for imposing reporting restrictions in prescribed circumstances". It is a dubious proposition that even the Secretary of State would have sufficient prescience to be able to judge the likely circumstances in which hearings in private and reporting restrictions may arise.
Of course, we all have the greatest respect for existing Secretaries of State—and future Secretaries of State—but we are entitled to a little occasional doubt as to whether they, or even their advisers, would be able to look far enough into the future to make such predictions with confidence, especially given the sensitivities and the variations in circumstances likely to be involved in the hearings before the tribunal.
Needless to say, I would prefer the wording in my amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which would leave such matters to the tribunal's discretion. We are trusting the tribunal with so much else that we should trust it to make its own judgment on whether hearings should be in private and whether reporting restrictions should be imposed. Given the nature of the hearings, we might start with a presumption that they should be held in private and covered by reporting restrictions. That is an important question, and we have had no guidance on it.
The tribunal should be able to decide for itself, in the knowledge of the prevailing circumstances and the individual case. With the best will in the world, regulations could not make provision for all circumstances in a sufficiently sensitive and flexible way, especially as we do not know whether the presumption will be that reporting restrictions should be in force and that hearings should be held in private, with public hearings only in exceptional cases. It would be more respectful to the tribunal to allow it to decide for itself. We now have great experience of tribunals on different issues, and such decisions could safely be left to the tribunal in this case.
Amendment No. 18, I accept, makes the other argument. It would be useful to have regulations—which could still allow some flexibility—that made provision for the location of, access to and security of hearings. My reasons are well rehearsed. Hearings should be located so as to be as convenient as possible for those involved, their families and witnesses. However, that has to be squared with reasonable access—I do not mean only the obvious access for people with disabilities—and the need for security. Cases such as those that the tribunal will hear can occasionally give rise to strong feelings in communities and the need for security, especially on the part of the person at the centre of the hearings, should be fully taken into account.
I hope that my amendments will be accepted. It is reasonable to request that the tribunal should be given a proper role in deciding its proceedings, and we should also be sensible about the difficulties that may arise.

§ Mr. Maclean
I support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and 661 Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I urge the Minister to consider accepting amendment No. 18—if not today, then when it goes to the other place. He should do so because clause 9 does not contain the normal catch-all regulation-making power which usually says that the Secretary of State may make any other regulations that he thinks fit. If those words had been added to clause 9, after the list of some 20 other regulation-making powers, the Minister could tell the House that amendment No. 18 was unnecessary, because any worries about access or security would be the subject of the catch-all regulation-making power.
As far as I can see, however, the catch-all power is missing. It is often a relief to see such a power missing, because regulation-making catch-all powers are in some ways too much of a Henry VIII clause. But I am concerned because clause 9 sets out specific regulation-making powers. It is some time since I have seen powers laid out so specifically. If 20 individual points are named on which the Secretary of State may make regulations, statute law may be interpreted to mean that we cannot regulate on a 21st, unless there is a catch-all.
The point about access and security is a small one. The Bill is in much better shape that it was when it went into Committee, and today's amendments today have improved its shape further. Even though the Minister has not accepted some amendments, our debates have made the Bill infinitely better than it was when it was first a gleam in the eye of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley). This small amendment could improve it further.
We have all seen on television scenes in which someone has been charged with a horrible crime and, understandably, a large group—perhaps "mob" would be too derogatory a term—of relatives and concerned local people has gathered outside the court, or people are banging on the sides of the security van as the accused person is taken to and from the court. We all know that when a paedophile is released from prison there are difficulties over where that person may settle. Local people become concerned and groups form. After his having been in prison, the released person's life may be at risk once again if the public get their hands on him.
Those are extreme cases, but there is a similar potential for danger if some people are outed as possible abusers who will face a tribunal hearing. In some cases, it is understandable that, if the press misbehave and report that the person will appear before a tribunal and may be regarded as a child molester or pervert, some people will, to put it at its mildest, wish to make their point of view known to him or her; others may wish to commit violence.
I have no sympathy at all with convicted child abusers or molesters or paedophiles. However, we must assume that someone is innocent until proven guilty. We must assume that someone appearing before a tribunal is innocent until the tribunal rules against him or her. In such circumstances, people are entitled to secure access when they travel to the hearing, wherever it may be.
I agree with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on his other two amendments. I hope that the Minister will say whether the presumption in regulations will be for or against holding hearings in private and the imposition of reporting restrictions. There is merit in the suggestion that the tribunal should be left to decide whether to hold hearings in private or impose reporting restrictions.
662 The tribunal may know better than the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State should leave it to the president of the tribunal to decide. The Bill says that the president of the tribunal must be a legally qualified person of seven years' experience who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor. He or she should have the nous, gumption and ability to make decisions for himself or herself.

§ Mr. Hutton
I shall respond briefly to the points raised by the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). Amendment No. 18 contains some serious technical deficiencies. I do not intend in any way to brush off the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but the amendment would fit badly with the Bill. For example, he will find that his concern about access to premises is already covered by paragraph 5 of the schedule.
The topics covered in clause 9(3) are as they are because the regulations relate to the conduct of proceedings before the industrial tribunal. The right hon. Gentleman's suggested addition to the list would go significantly beyond matters that relate to the conduct of such proceedings. I am not sure of the exact position or whether it would be appropriate to use clause 9(2) and the powers therein to make provision for a matter that did not apply directly to those proceedings.
2 pm
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of good points when talking to amendments Nos. 16 and 17, to which I will respond as best I can. As drafted, the Bill provides that the holding of hearings in private and the imposition of reporting restrictions—both steps that should not be taken lightly, as I am sure the House will agree—may take place only in circumstances that will be specified in regulations. The amendments propose that those decisions should be left to the discretion of the tribunal, so that it may hold hearings in private and impose reporting restrictions very much at its own discretion.
It is no exaggeration to say that it is a fundamental principle of English law that hearings should take place in public and judgments should be pronounced publicly. Those rights should be curtailed only where there is specific justification for doing so, for example, to protect the interests of juveniles and the identity of witnesses, or more generally, where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
As such, it would be entirely inappropriate to allow the tribunal the discretion to disapply those rights at its own initiative. It should be able to do so only in certain limited circumstances, which should be clearly expressed, so that the parties to the application are clear from the outset as to their rights and any decision on those important issues is taken within clearly identified criteria so everyone knows where they stand and how their case is likely to be dealt with.
Two other matters were raised during this short debate. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst queried the general thrust of the power to make regulations. The powers under clause 9 are similar to powers taken in the Education Act 1996—I think that it would be fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman was one of the main architects of that legislation.
663 The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border expressed his concern about the list of matters to be subject to regulation under clause 9. He was concerned at the lack of a residual catch-all power to make regulations as and when the Secretary of State might think appropriate. Clause 9(3) states: The regulations may, in particular, include provision— and goes on to list various items. The list is not intended to be exhaustive: we drew attention to particular issues with which we thought it necessary to deal on the face of the Bill.
There are technical problems with both the amendments and strong reasons why they should not be included in the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst feels able to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Forth
It sounds as though I should ask for my previous ministerial convictions to be taken into account, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do so at this stage.
I thank the Minister for his full and convincing reply to the debate. I am satisfied with what he has said and, without any further hesitation, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.